The really simple argument is that at the previous price very, very few people in India could afford it. So in the end it is more than likely that the revenue that is gained is higher than it would have been at the very high price.
No, I can't argue that's not true. We don't really know what Bayer's strategy was here. For all we know they could have told the Indian gov't to shove it. In that case, they gambled and lost.
Or, they could have offered the drug at 25% of the original cost and the gov't could have told them to shove it.
